|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
willcome
|
|
response 149 of 357:
| 
Jan 13 21:34 UTC 2004 |
I'm glad my content's intact.
|
jp2
|
|
response 150 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 151 of 357:
|
Jan 13 22:28 UTC 2004 |
Check the logs!
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 152 of 357:
|
Jan 14 10:37 UTC 2004 |
resp:138 Whoa, cowboy, just hold on right there. If you really want
to believe that, I'm sorry.
Yeah, I don't know you. But is it possible for me to disagree with
what how you did things without coming to the conclusion, "oh, gee,
he's just buying into everyone's rant that jep is an unethical vandal?"
I think it could be. By your same reasoning-- you don't know me-- I
don't know why the hell you chose to single me out.
I am a father, and I hope I can empathize on some level. If I
understand things correctly, you want some control on how you want to
discuss things with your son... to not risk the possibility of a lot
of unpleasantness just land in his lap.
Honestly, I think scribbing out your responses in the item would have
been the best way to go. Apparently-- that didn't happen-- we are all
dealing with this after the fact.
Again, I'm not sure why you see that I am projecting such unfavorable
views upon you. Granted, all I know of you is a father who obviously
cares about his son (hmmm, there is a possibility that I might have a
response or two in your items) and that the material that the items
covered was about a very difficult time that you wish to put behind
you. You've said that restoring the items jeopardizes that-- that
unscrupluous users will repost them to the forefront (do I remember
correctly) and that it could be damaging to you, and your son... if he
was to find it. I think it was mentioned that your ex-wife *might*
get a hold of it if she hadn't already.
I can understand all of that, and understand why the material should
be gone. Even if, theoretically, the material might have remained and
no harm would have been done, you had very good reasons to remove
it... and as best I understood, scribbling was the legitimate way to
have it done. However, a staff member intervened on your behalf,
deleted everything, and hence the controversy.
I don't make decisions cast in stone-- I do try to get as much
information as possible. To be honest, John, I am sympathetic and
empathetic, if you would believe that. But I am also sympathetic to
those who are examining the precedent this may cause, and
unfortunately, because Valerie was involved and because of the
controversy surrounding her own actions, well, I would like to push
for a solution that keeps policy on an even keel... because I don't
think any of us can tell what might happen in the future.
I know this must be terribly emotion-wrenching for you. But I'm not
thinking what you're claiming. Much too simplistic. At best, my
opinion is that some decisions were made that weren't well thought
out... maybe more on Valerie's part. I also see that those decisions
will have an impact on Grex policy... and what people decide will
determine how things are run in the future. I see two interests very
much at seeming conflict-- a father pleading against restoration,
arguing such is a foreseeable risk, and a group that argues
restoration (with scribbling later) is the way to preserving policy
for the future. Not sure how to have the cake and eat it too... but
solutions seem to be at an impass for the moment.
|
jep
|
|
response 153 of 357:
|
Jan 14 14:15 UTC 2004 |
re resp:152: Jack, my point in mentioning you is that you're someone
who doesn't know me very well, yet in resp:115 you referred to me and
said "unethical" about 4 times. I didn't mean to pick on you. I'm
sorry, because it's clear to me why you'd take it that way.
I haven't discussed in great detail the reasons I think there is risk
from those items. I don't want to. More detail about that isn't going
to change the discussion.
Once again, I'm not trying to change any policies, and I don't think I
*am* changing any policies. I'm asking for a very specific exception.
My request is not a referendum on Valerie or on her actions.
|
naftee
|
|
response 154 of 357:
|
Jan 14 14:34 UTC 2004 |
you're right, you aren't changing policies. They were temporarily changed
for you. That makes you special, but certainly not more correct.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 155 of 357:
|
Jan 14 15:36 UTC 2004 |
If the item is restored, I would like all of my responses deleted, as well,
just in case anyone is keeping track of who's said so or not.
|
other
|
|
response 156 of 357:
|
Jan 14 16:39 UTC 2004 |
Thanks a lot, Twila, for contributing something actually *useful* to
this discussion. You're gonna ruin the whole theme of the thing!
;)
|
carson
|
|
response 157 of 357:
|
Jan 14 17:31 UTC 2004 |
(my $.02: it appears to me that some of the very people who were so
helpful to John way back when are some of the same people who want
their words restored; I don't know because, although I was aware of the
existence of the items, I never read the items much and likely never
will. it also seems to me that, in the event that John's items on
divorce are restored, even if his responses are removed from said
items, it's his name and login credited with entering the items. [as
such, he's also the one who could, if the items were restored, go
through Backtalk and change the item titles to "Fluffy Grey Bunnies
Doing Handstands" or something similarly innocuous.] I've also seen it
mentioned that no one's read the items in over a year; I doubt that's
true, although it's possible that no one had *responded* to the items
in over a year. that's a nitpick on my part, but, as someone who
regularly reads old items, it's a nit worth picking.)
(I don't know how I would vote on this proposal. I keep trying to
apply various paradigms such as "freedom versus virtue" and "free
speech versus community" and "compassion versus law," but none of them
seem to apply in a way that I would like.)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 158 of 357:
|
Jan 14 19:20 UTC 2004 |
And as somebody else mentioned, jep can *retire* his items, so they are not
even apparent to the average user.
|
naftee
|
|
response 159 of 357:
|
Jan 14 23:56 UTC 2004 |
Thank you for mentioning that again. I'm sure it has been missed somewhere.
|
gull
|
|
response 160 of 357:
|
Jan 15 01:45 UTC 2004 |
I suspect part of the reason so much anger is being directed at jep is
because valerie is no longer around to take it out on.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 161 of 357:
|
Jan 15 02:00 UTC 2004 |
In my case, I simply had more invested in jep's item as opposed to
valerie's. I also thought jep's item was one of the better ones on grex
and generated lots of good comments.
|
jep
|
|
response 162 of 357:
|
Jan 15 03:13 UTC 2004 |
I'll say this, everyone who posted in those items was very, very
helpful to me. I appreciated it then and I do now. I regret being at
odds with some of you.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 163 of 357:
|
Jan 15 09:13 UTC 2004 |
resp:153 Read it again, John. I said that the actions taken were
considered unethical... namely, the controversy has been actions that
led to having the entire items deleted. I have perceived that some
folks have believed it unethical, if you will, unfair, restricting
free speech.
It seems a jump to me to therefore assume that I will therefore
associate your name with scandalous accusations. I tried to state
things as I saw them, without making any such connection. I'm sorry
you don't see it that way, because I'm not out to be your enemy at all
or make your life miserable. I feel you are mistaken.
|
jep
|
|
response 164 of 357:
|
Jan 15 17:09 UTC 2004 |
re resp:163: Jack, I think we're close to being on the same page.
I understand you don't necessarily think I am unethical. I don't
regard you as my enemy, or someone who's trying to make me miserable.
(-:
I was more using you as an example of someone who doesn't know me very
well, but may now be associating my name with such concepts
as "unethical" or a "vandal" after seeing the things that people who do
know me have said about me. It seemed likely to me you'd think of me
that way because one of your responses used the word "unethical"
several times.
While I can retain hope that *you* won't think that's how I am, I can
also expect that *others* will think of me as an unethical vandal
because people -- who do know me, and who know better than that -- keep
saying that.
|
janc
|
|
response 165 of 357:
|
Jan 15 17:25 UTC 2004 |
I'm baffled by the attempt to blame JEP for all this. The only thing he ever
did was express a desire to have those two items removed. He never heard
anything about what the board was thinking. He didn't know about the idea
of temporarily deleting the item and bringing it up for public discussion (I
meant to clear that with him - as it would potentially subject him to some
pain and he might have prefered to leave the items quietly forgotten - but
I never got around to it, since we never even had board agree to consider
that option - some board members opposed it strongly). JEP did not talk
Valerie in to this. Valerie felt strongly that it was proper for her items
to be deleted. She saw the similarity of circumstances between her and John,
and chose to apply her own ethical standards in a uniform way, although in
open defiance of Grex's rules. She did not tell anyone, not me, not JEP,
that she was planning to do so. It makes no sense to beat JEP for her
actions. The only thing JEP ever did was tell people how he felt, not yet
a crime on Grex (though it may be on M-Net).
|
jp2
|
|
response 166 of 357:
|
Jan 15 17:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 167 of 357:
|
Jan 15 18:29 UTC 2004 |
This may help you with your baffledness, Jan. Here is mail
jep sent to Valerie, staff and board, on January 7th, 4:30 p.m.
"Additionally, I feel strongly that, since you were allowed to delete
your items, I should be allowed to have mine deleted. You said you
acted as two people. User Valerie asked Staffer Valerie to delete the
items, and without much ado, it was done. I have now asked the staff
of Grex to delete a couple of items for me. User Jep has made the
same request, which has clearly reached Staffer Valerie. No debate is
needed. Please just delete the items. You can discuss it later.
I can justify my second thoughts and request to delete my item quite
easily, but I should not need to do so. Just, please, delete the items
and do it now."
I don't think Valerie would have killed the divorce items
had John not demanded it be done. So, he was part of this
action, by his own emphatic request.
Not that it matters much. This isn't about punishing John.
It's about users censoring other users.
|
jp2
|
|
response 168 of 357:
|
Jan 15 18:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 169 of 357:
|
Jan 15 18:52 UTC 2004 |
I don't know if mary betrayed any confidences by posting that. But jep it
seems pretty clear to me from that, as I said earlier, that you just wanted
what you wanted because you wanted it. I can understand that, even if I
wouldn't support granting it to you. So please just cut the crap about it
being important stuff, blah-blah-blah-Blah-BLAH!
|
cyklone
|
|
response 170 of 357:
|
Jan 15 18:53 UTC 2004 |
Jep is certainly no innocent here. As I've mentioned before, at the very least
he is attempting to retain a benefit to which he was/is not entitled and it
is very unseemly for him to refuse to graciously "return" that undeserved
benefit. And in view of #167, I think his claims of innocence are even more
suspect.
|
carson
|
|
response 171 of 357:
|
Jan 15 19:21 UTC 2004 |
(oh, for fuck's sake, Mary...)
(that was wholly inappropriate. within your rights, maybe, but still
inappropriate.)
|
mary
|
|
response 172 of 357:
|
Jan 15 19:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 173 of 357:
|
Jan 15 19:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|